Is the real, historical Jesus likely to have taught..

[Elijah John]

Is the real, historical Jesus more likely to have taught:

-us to pray to the Father?
Or to himself.

-forgiveness though simple repentance and trust in the Father's mercy? Or forgiveness by "the blood".

-affrimation of the Jewish Sh'ma, absolute monotheism? That the Father alone is God? Or that he, Jesus himself, is also God the second person of a Trinity?

Yes, we know what the "Christ of Faith" seems to have taught according to the Church, but what did the real, historical Jesus likely teach on these matters?

-Do we read the Gospels at face value? Or does historical accuracy demand that we read between the lines and take into account cultural, religious and historical context?

(And yes, for the purposes of this topic and for the sake of argument, please assume there was a real, historical Jesus)

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If you are attempting to speculate on what a historical Jesus might have taught, I would recommend consulting with a textual critic like Bart Ehrman.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If you are attempting to speculate on what a historical Jesus might have taught, I would recommend consulting with a textual critic like Bart Ehrman.

Yeah, I have. And also HJ scholars like Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and John Shelby Spong. The basic consensus among HJ scholars is that there is an historical Jesus, and a "Christ of faith". The two ought not to be conflated. Or in the words of Borg, a "pre-Easter" and a "post-Easter" Jesus. And that the Gospel of John is the least reliable Gospel for determining what the real, historical Jesus may have actually taught. And that Paul seems relatively unconcerned with the teachings of Jesus himself, but rather more concerned with formulating theology about Jesus based on his supposed encounter with the risen Christ.

But don't it beat all, the RCC and it's progeny draws mostly from the least reliable Gospel and the treachings of Paul for such ritual institutions as the Eucharist, and the Nicene Creed.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus defined himself as the way to God, not God himself. He admitted that whatever power he used came from God. In the extremity of his trial he did not suggest that he could use his own power: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Whether we believe his pleas would have met with success is a discussion for another day. It seems clear that Christ saw himself as the servant of God, his instrument, his emissary.

Christ's elevation to God's co-equal comes from John's enthusiasm and Pau's inventiveness. There is nothing reported in Christ's speeches that would justify his apotheosis It would make no sense in view of what Christ said of himself and the Father.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Jesus defined himself as the way to God, not God himself. He admitted that whatever power he used came from God. In the extremity of his trial he did not suggest that he could use his own power: "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?"

Whether we believe his pleas would have met with success is a discussion for another day. It seems clear that Christ saw himself as the servant of God, his instrument, his emissary.

Christ's elevation to God's co-equal comes from John's enthusiasm and Pau's inventiveness. There is nothing reported in Christ's speeches that would justify his apotheosis It would make no sense in view of what Christ said of himself and the Father.

To the bold:
Do we know who was at this trial to record this?

Just curious if the unknown authors of the gospels are crediting an unknown source.
Which is what I suspect, but don't know to be the case (or not).

(Just asking in case you know or have a theory, not requesting you to back up any statements/claims you have not made).
Much appreciated.

Your take on this does seem reasonable (that Jesus viewed himself as a servant, instrument or what have you of a god and not a god himself).

[Divine Insight]

-Do we read the Gospels at face value? Or does historical accuracy demand that we read between the lines and take into account cultural, religious and historical context?

In the case of Jesus how could you expect to read between the lines?

You certainly can't assume that Jesus would support "orthodox Jewish beliefs" as the New Testament rumors have Jesus arguing and disagreeing with the orthodox Jewish religious leaders.

Clearly Jesus' views were not in harmony with orthodox Jewish beliefs and traditions. So it makes no sense to assume that Jesus would support those orthodox views.

[marco]

Do we know who was at this trial to record this?

Just curious if the unknown authors of the gospels are crediting an unknown source.
Which is what I suspect, but don't know to be the case (or not).

(Just asking in case you know or have a theory, not requesting you to back up any statements/claims you have not made).

The game I think was to examine what Jesus might have taught about himself. The method is to look at what he is reported to have said and done. The problem is always believing the messengers and I don't. But when I am discussing Hamlet I don't need to believe he was Prince of Denmark.

The subtext of who reported Christ's speech addressed to Pilate involves supposing someone such as Joseph of Arimathea told X who told Y. It would not stand up in modern biography without attribution. Christ's long discourse in the wilderness with the Devil is another speech that makes one wonder about how we have heard it and Matthew's ingenious research work - it must have taken years - to identify Adam as the ancestor of Jesus is a work of artifice.

I am commenting on quotes. That's all.

[marco]

Clearly Jesus' views were not in harmony with orthodox Jewish beliefs and traditions. So it makes no sense to assume that Jesus would support those orthodox views.

And yet Matthew tells us: "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

That is a vast vote of confidence in Jewish Law. I think Jesus saw himself as the correct interpreter, the upholder of the law while the Pharisees got it all wrong. He probably thought that was why he'd been summoned from Nazareth by the Almighty to make people aware of the right reading.

Is it surprising that given a choice between the many who guarded the books of law and knew them perfectly, and a young man who appeared from nowhere the vast majority today opt for the stranger? Not really, when one realises that his followers saw benefit in admitting gentiles to the sacred mysteries and gratitude has a billion handshakes.

[Divine Insight]

Clearly Jesus' views were not in harmony with orthodox Jewish beliefs and traditions. So it makes no sense to assume that Jesus would support those orthodox views.

And yet Matthew tells us: "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

That is a vast vote of confidence in Jewish Law. I think Jesus saw himself as the correct interpreter, the upholder of the law while the Pharisees got it all wrong. He probably thought that was why he'd been summoned from Nazareth by the Almighty to make people aware of the right reading.

Is it surprising that given a choice between the many who guarded the books of law and knew them perfectly, and a young man who appeared from nowhere the vast majority today opt for the stranger? Not really, when one realises that his followers saw benefit in admitting gentiles to the sacred mysteries and gratitude has a billion handshakes.

It's extremely unlikely that Jesus ever said the words attributed to him by Matthew. There are simply too many jots and tittle in the Old Testament law that contradict the things Jesus actually taught. Jesus himself rebuked the laws written in the Old Testament:

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So here we have Jesus himself rebuking the jots and tittle of the Old Testament directly.

So clearly the accounts we have of what Jesus had supposedly said cannot be true, unless Jesus was a hypocrite and a liar and willing to say just anything at any moment even if it totally contradicts his teachings at other times.

You can't rebuke the laws directly at one point and claim that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law at another.

So either Jesus was an untrustworthy person who would just say contradictory things when he felt like it, or we simply cannot trust the authors of the NT to correctly quote what Jesus ever actually said.

Neither argument helps Christian theology.

[marco]

It's extremely unlikely that Jesus ever said the words attributed to him by Matthew.

It's extremely unlikely that Jesus ever said or did anything reported by Matthew. If Truth depends on Matthew it's been well and truly crucified.

So either Jesus was an untrustworthy person who would just say contradictory things when he felt like it, or we simply cannot trust the authors of the NT to correctly quote what Jesus ever actually said.

Neither argument helps Christian theology.

I think when we accept Matthew was an average to mediocre fiction writer we can forget ideas that Christianity can be reliably built on his creations. His great rival of course is Paul who adopts the conceit that when he talks he's talking for God. A modest man. Fumbling to find Jesus through their vision is a doomed pursuit.